'Printing money is the last resort of desperate governments when all other policies have failed'

So said George Osborne in January 2009, and he was absolutely right. Inflation rewards fecklessness, punishes thrift, disincentivises workand weakens the competitiveness of the entire economy.

George did admit one exception. Quantitative easing, he allowed, 'can’t be ruled out as a last resort in the fight against deflation'. One might debate that proposition in the abstract but, in practical terms, it is utterly irrelevant. There is no danger of deflation in Britain. On the contrary, prices are rising alarmingly. The CPI stood at 4.5 per cent in September (up from 4.4 per cent in August), the RPI at 5.2 per cent (up from 5.0).

Inflation is a vile and sneaky way for an overdrawn government to renege on its obligations. An indebted state has three options: it can cut spending; it can raise taxes; or it can print money. The last is the most cowardly and harmful. But it is attractive, as George says, to desperate governments, because politicians believe that they won't be directly blamed for it. While voters understand that tax rises and spending cuts are decreed by ministers, many people think of inflation as some sort of natural force – a phenomenon that governments have to deal with rather than one they create.

In his conference speech, the Chancellor declared that a further bout of quantitative easing was entirely at the discretion of the Bank of England. He would, he said 'give Treasury approval if they ask'. Why? What qualifies the Monetary Policy Committee to make that decision? What success can they point to as evidence of their competence?

Surely such a decision should be voted on by the House of Commons. If a Chancellor believes that printing more money is needed – if he feels that 'all other policies have failed' – he should go to the people's elected representatives and ask their permission to dilute the currency. MPs, in their turn, should weigh their constituents' wishes and vote accordingly.